Re: AMQ-7309 and PR-729 Robbie’s latest review caught an in-flight WIP. I had not yet requested re-review. I am in the process verifying the feasibility of supporting disableMessageID support within the wider range of unit tests. I will request re-reviews once the additional tests and clean-ups are pushed through.
There have been a number of good suggestions in the first pass, and almost all of those have already been implemented. I don’t see any reason this won’t be the case for the next pass. Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Feb 21, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Finally doing a 5.17.0 release sounds good. > > That said, I dont personally think > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/729 is ready for inclusion in > a release though, even with an '-rc1' adorned version number > previously suggested but apparently no longer planned, since even as a > 'first phase' it is surprisingly incomplete, adding some of the JMS 2 > 'simplified API' but not even doing much of the basic JMS 1.1 level > functionality within it, like setting a MessageListener on a > JMSConsumer, or creating a durable subscriber (non-shared), or > JMSContext's acknowledge() method for doing client-ack (presumably the > message method works though), etc. > > It also just seems very odd to even think about just *starting* to > including stuff like that on main within a couple days of intending to > do a release thats nearing being *years* in the making, and getting > describe to users as '2-3 weeks' for way over a year now, including > multiple times in the last few months. > > For me, the most obvious idea at this point would actually be for > 5.17.x to be branched and proceed without this. Theres a load of stuff > in it already that is long overdue like the JDK11 build etc. I would > go so far as to say the prior API jar change from early November > (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/682) should also be > effectively reverted, it makes no sense to me on its own. Then all of > this stuff then worked on towards a 5.18.x release that actually > implements and tests things to a reasonable level thats less likely to > see even trivial use cases fail to work. > > Robbie > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 04:55, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I worked on the log4j2 update PR this weekend, fixing almost all unit >> tests using a custom appender. I just have to fix the >> activemq-web-demo test and squash, and the PR will be good to be >> merged. I will do that today. >> >> Then, later today and tomorrow I will work on using jetty modules >> instead of jetty-all and update to Jetty 9.4.45. >> >> I will do a pass on Jira and PRs, especially the ones from Matt. @Matt >> can you please ping me on slack to check together the status of the >> PRs ? >> >> Regarding this, I would like to submit 5.17.0 to vote this Thursday if >> there are no objections. >> >> Regards >> JB
